Hit me with your PC stick: Breeders

[stephbg]

[Poll #1365260]

I might point out that the appropriate term for breeding females here would be "queens" :-)

Granted, the fathers often get the short end of the nomenclature stick with "tom" for example, (or "lunch") but perhaps we could go for the more flattering "sire".

Comments

[emma-in-oz.livejournal.com]

Yes, unbelievably offensive. Have always thought so. I do not listen to anyone who uses this phrase as it is the equivalent signal of stupidity as any racial slur or class based slur.

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

Wow. I am... surprised, I think. I didn't read it as nearly that bad, or at least thought it would be softened by the context of coming from me. No slur intended. Well, that's why I asked, and I appreciate your answer.

BTW I deliberately didn't make a contrast between "breeder" and "worker". That's not OK in my book. That slur is all about the implications of the contrast. My intent was to distinguish between parents and not-parents.

[emma-in-oz.livejournal.com]

I did not even notice you using the term! See, because it was you. I should totally have chosen that option.

I don't mind being a 'breeder' except that it is always used to dismissively describe mindless drones in the suburbs with no thoughts beyond buying a better BBQ. And it is also women who are breeders. Men get to avoid the label by dint of having work identities.

[purrdence.livejournal.com]

Funny thing was, once a upon a time this term never bothered me (because all creatures breed). That was, until a bunch of anti-child gay Furry men I knew started using it as an insult, reducing those who wanted to have kids to nothing more than brood mares continuing the species. It was aimed at the female members of the fandom more than the males. The term now makes me feel like I'm being turned into a walking incubator.

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

I certainly won't bring it up again.

[babalon-93.livejournal.com]

I have chosen other, because I do find it offensive, but more in the way that I would think less of the person who used it rather than see it as a slight against myself :)

But context and intent does matter to me, so I may have equally chosen "no, but only because you said it".

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you mentioned context and intent, but I am surprised how little weight my reputation appears to have. Or perhaps my reputation is in worse shape than I thought? I only hope people stop to notice that this issue was raised as a question.

Language is such an awkward business.

[babalon-93.livejournal.com]

I only hope people stop to notice that this issue was raised as a question.

Oh my yes, I certainly don't think less of you for asking the question!

I am surprised how little weight my reputation appears to have

In truth I did not see the "no, if it was said by you" button until after I pressed :)

But in general I do think it is a pretty derogatory term.

Language awkward? Hell yes :)

[callistra.livejournal.com]

I dithered. I picked "yes, absolutely" then changed it to 'No, because it was you," and then changed it back to "yeah, absolutely."

So, um, yeah. Absolutely.

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

*hearts you and is much relieved*

[callistra.livejournal.com]

LOL
I wanted to be honest and all, and it made me laugh, but I did get offended quite recently when someone else used the term.
It's like... there's nothing to us other than the contents of our womb. We get that. We get that every day.
:-)

[shrydar.livejournal.com]

I can understand your reaction!

FWIW, the times I've seen it used pejoratively it was equally aimed at men who brought their children to events that the poster was expecting to be child-free as at women. But we're not talking a big sample size here, and I'm certainly not downplaying your own experiences.

[shrydar.livejournal.com]

The literal meaning is a simple fact, but I've seen it used pejoratively in discussions on some US-centric steampunk comms, so I'd have been been reticent to use the term myself even before seeing your poll results.

Had I witnessed you using the term before today I'd have just assumed you were being quirkily scientific.

Utopia vs reality

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

It's accurate, therefore nobody should be offended. The unfortunate reality is that many people will (choose to) be offended by labels, even if they are accurate. This leads to the labels gaining an intrinsic power to cause offence. I believe the world would be a much happier place if people would stop managing to find so many ways to be offended.

Reminds me of hearing about a kid writing "Ms X sucks cocks" on a class board. My initial thought was that that's not much of an insult. She probably does. The negated version of the statement is probably a better candidate for being insulting but, either way, it's just a personal choice.

[gemfyre.livejournal.com]

"Breeder" - one who breeds.
"To breed" - to reproduce, produce offpring etc.

Seems like a reasonable definition to me. ;)

NB : The term "breeder" is used as a vaguely derogatory term sometimes by the childfree crowd - which I closely identify with. (There are plenty of more deliberately offensive terms used however.)

Actually, now I think about it. "Breeder" is generally used by the CF crowd to indicate somebody who unthinkingly has children and/or does not raise them well. Two terms often used are "BNP" (Breeder, not parent) and "PNB" (Parent, not Breeder - somebody who has thought about the ramifications of having a child and is doing all they can to raise another decent citizen).

[baby-elvis.livejournal.com]

I have only heard it used offensively, but I've never noticed you use it and I know you wouldn't mean it to be so.

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

AFAIK I haven't used the term lately. It may have come up in a rant about insufficient child care *forcing* a breeder/worker dichotomy, but I wouldn't dream of using it offensively. "Skank" (for example) is much less ambiguous.

Surprised!

[rdmasters.livejournal.com]

I am only familiar with it as a derogatory term from the gay community - applied equally to straights of either gender.

Hearing it as a specific description of one whose has carried a child is shocking in the sense that it breaks my preconceptions of the term in that context.

Congratulations on your very own 'shock-jock' moment.

Re: Surprised!

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

If you look very carefully I never specified female only. Everyone seems to have ignored the whole queen/sire thing too, which is informative in itself.

Re: Surprised!

[rdmasters.livejournal.com]

Good point!

Now that you mention it, it is very much a "D'oh!" moment, having had that pointed out.

Unconscious prejudging is still prejudice, isn't it? Indeed, it is the most insidious and difficult to deal with.

(Goes off to ponder.)

[krjalk.livejournal.com]

I'm somewhat surprised I seem to be in the minority here in not finding it a big deal. Perhaps I'm just reclaiming the word a la "nigger" or "geek".

I have bred. Multiple times, I'm bloody proud of it, and would seem to produce rather stunning results. If we had the money, we'd do it again in a heartbeat (donations and stipends gratefully accepted. Really, it's for the good of the gene pool). Like Merete said when I read this post to her, if someone can't speak of the concept without a curled lip and ostentatious display of contempt, that's their problem, not ours. If they utter the word "parent" with a spit, how is it substantially different?

I know several people who use the term to describe themselves and other parents. I suspect, like I said in the first paragraph, that the term may be undergoing a reclamation process. We wouldn't use the term at a school P&C meeting, but there can be a sense of solidarity in using it informally. Despite my attempted linkage, its usage is fundamentally different to the n-word in that it's not a symbol of institutionalized oppression. It's a lot easier to shrug off or subvert if it can just be viewed instead as a marker of an individual's intolerance rather than society's.

[fred-mouse.livejournal.com]

having first encountered it within the gay community, where it was used as a perjorative aimed at people they assumed heterosexual, and having it applied to me (when I was pregnant) in such a manner that I could only assume that it was used to try and get me to leave an open queer community event (Fair Day), I find that it has a lot more baggage than merely an implication that the person in question has children. It can be enough to trigger mild to moderate anxiety, and to check where the exits are, and if there are allies around, depending on the context.

but, if your analogy to those other two words hold, then the *only* people allowed to use it are those with children, which means that you are justified in using it. unfortunately, the same logic would make steph's use more offensive, rather than less (and yes, steph, I would have made allowances for you, if it was used in circumstances where I could tell that you weren't using it negatively, and there was no-one around who could possible assume that it was therefore an appropriate word to use. However, I would still have been uncomfortable).

[fred-mouse.livejournal.com]

(ps what have i missed that triggered the question?)

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

You missed nothing, apart from the general chat about children at Swancon which inspired the thought. I was being pre-emptive so I wouldn't offend (or discomfort) by accident.